"The great purveyors of Truth will not be found in the newspapers or academic hierarchy, but among those who devote their time to the betterment of the nation by constant investigation and the process of elimination, until all that is left is the bare reality." D Cohen
The modern means of revolution only needs to be through knowledge. Repeating the same basic truths is like hammering in a nail until the information becomes set. When enough people do the revolution is here.

Wednesday, 31 December 2014

The Occupy Movement, Anonymous, Britain Uncut and Russell Brand represent what I would call the main heads of the 21st century's left wing revolutionary movement, and although we have two, that and the libertarian, represented by the Tea Party, Heartland Institute, UKIP, and individuals such as Ron Paul, the major difference I see is one is based on fact while the other is based on emotion. The leftist movement don't like what they see, it feels wrong, and like babies they scream. They know they don't like it and want something else, but only the vaguest idea what. They do overlap on a few unavoidable facts so clear even they can't miss them, much like hunger or cold, the crooked bankers are impossible to miss by anyone except the governments who don't prosecute them for fraud, so they work much like the human papilloma virus, causing visibly horrible warts all over society but the policemen, the society's immune system, can't detect or remove them from the system. But apart from the bankers the world seen by the left and the libertarians couldn't be any more different.

Various journalists interviewed the occupiers during the months they squatted in the streets of world capitals, and the bottom line was they wanted to get rid of the bankers and capitalism, the rest was pretty much based on the individuals and there was no clear actual goal, in fact like Russell Brand they just wanted to take down this system and besides paying the poor more benefits (to reverse the changes made by the current UK coalition) they hadn't really thought of actual alternatives and were far more focused on destruction than any positive ideas. The libertarians are an old and established movement, with philosophers and academics writing on the subject for centuries. You cannot compare those on the left, Marx and Engels etc, with the current left wing movement as they probably don't even know who they are. Their heroes are activist groups, headless collectives such as Greenpeace, MoveOn, The Sierra Club etc, which if you ask most of them what they think of George Soros (for the handful who know who he is of course) they'd rightly lump him in with the worst of the bankers and call for his head. Yet he is the one who runs many of these groups including funding the roots of the Occupy Movement. The crooks motivate the useful idiots to impotently fight their own system, and look so ridiculous it then discredits any genuine attempts to bring them down as the idiots are so high profile any genuine fighters are associated with them and dismissed accordingly. A very clever formula really.

Libertarians however are based on knowledge. Knowing how most acts of government are unnecessary, how much of the money taken in taxes is wasted or appropriated and never used for the people who assume the government need it to pay for services. Not much does. They realise a mature society needs a government to do what they can't- look after the poor and sick, and protect the country against hostile actions etc. They have no role in social engineering- creating 'equality', putting certain people in certain jobs, telling people what they can and can't say outside lying, and dictating their morals. The moral question is an area of itself with plenty of dedicated material, but suffice to say whatever you believe outside the protection principle, ie treat others the way you would want to be treated so don't attack them physically or their property, is different from person to person, society to society and era to era. There is no right answer to morals as they are no different to what food or music you prefer and are mainly passed on by religion and your parents. It is not for anyone to tell others on penalty of law what words you can use for disabled or ethnic people, or what sort of sex people can have in private, or actually even in public as taking offence is an entirely personal reaction and should not be protected by law either. Just because most people feel incredibly strongly about seeing people naked, having sex or breastfeeding in public it doesn't mean it should be against the law, it may be chaotic but it hurts nobody. Urinating or defecating in the street spreads germs so cannot be treated equally.

The overlap between Occupy and the libertarians is the core of central fraud in society they both want to get rid of. Ultimately we all want peace and freedom, even probably the jihadists who want to be free to lock up women and force men to pray five times a day, but the difference being the jihadists want to impose their will on other people, breach the protection principle, so are the enemy. Again, returning to basic philosophy, your freedom simply ends when it affects other people. Black magic affects the will of others, so uses spells to target specific individuals against their will, while white magic only attracts a woman to you, not a specific one for instance. Whether or not it works the principle is there. I suppose in a way the left at least are on a positive track by recognising there is something deeply wrong with 21st century society but they react emotionally, are often uneducated and unemployed, and are the sort of people who cause more problems for both themselves and everyone else as they are misusing the power of protest and muddying the waters for the viewers who find it hard to tell the difference between the two types. I rarely see any of them reform and most are beyond a point of learning as they seem to be cooked, ripe to maturity and fixed in their emotional views based on a feeling of personal impotence and jealousy of those better off than them. The fact most failed at school and do not have the talent to reach the heights of those who they envy has no effect on them, they simply assume the successful must have cheated and stolen to get what they have, talent and hard work mean nothing to the hard left as all success must be cropped, unless it's so clear it was based on incredible ability those who have many millions from that, such as Russell Brand, are exempt from their fury.

Ideally we could educate the rabble and then they may realise the difference between destructive and constructive revolution. They don't really like losing the chance to make more money, they just don't believe they ever will so want guarantees the state will look after them and take the money from those who have more. That is both negative and unnecessary. Currently they have little power but waste their time and energy and have a negative effect by bringing more people on board who may have either stayed out of politics altogether or learned more over time and moved to the good side. There is a hard core of mentally twisted educated on the hard left but there always were and they were considered extremists and misanthropes and left well alone, but now they have their barmy armies of unwashed and uneducated mental pygmies to make their cause appear more mainstream. None of them would ever want the sort of regimes they propose, besides the existing unemployed who would simply maintain their current way of life but with more security. But even that would be addressed by a universal basic income meaning everyone had what they needed and they would get more by working. We can afford it. But what would they protest about then?

I hope once you recognise the difference between informed and negative protest movements you will not be drawn to the wrong ones. To many people they seem similar on the surface, they both want to get rid of fraud and cartels in society, but there the similarity ends. You will never hear a libertarian accuse someone of racism for wanting fewer immigrants or making jokes about foreigners, they will never berate you for your carbon footprint and eating good food when others are starving. They will never look at a rich person and think if they had less you would have more. These are all trademarks of the loser movement. They lose at everything in life. Work, relationships, life in general. They are disillusioned angry failures, and want everyone else to feel just like them so they can feel better. We don't want people like that with any power as they create wars, divisions and hate wherever they go and Russell Brand is their current poster boy, despite having everything they don't, except a bath.

Sunday, 28 December 2014

Back in the 70s the Ecology Party (as the Green Party was originally called) had a fairly specific agenda, little adopted or accepted by any others in the mainstream. Occasionally a left wing party with a large majority brought in eye watering taxes on the rich, but otherwise besides the basics protecting the people from dirty coal plants and factories the policies were fairly fringe and considered extreme by most outside their own field.

Wind things to the 21st century and then look at the list of policies I was describing back then and ask yourself why they are now actually mainstream and considered essential by the majority of politicians and voters. The policies themselves are well known, the question is what happened in the last 30 years before 2000 that made them leave the far extremes and become adopted worldwide, surely if they were that far out then then they always will be?

The ten core values set out by the Green Party policy document can be summarised as follows:[13]

Commitment to social and environmental justice, supporting a "radical transformation of society for the benefit of all, and for the planet as a whole". The threats to economic, social and environmental wellbeing are considered "part of the same problem" and can only be solved as one complete problem.

('...can only be solved as one complete problem' as stated by the UN when referring to global warming, as individual countries cannot be trusted to work alone, a new level of lawmaking and taxation must be brought in. As has taken place in the EU and worldwide wherever Agenda 21 was accepted (over 200 countries).

(now accepted as law by all countries adopting Agenda 21 in those exact words. Green policy is now world policy)

"Basic material security" as a universal, permanent entitlement.

Actions to "take account of the wellbeing of other nations, other species, and future generations", not advancing "our well-being to the detriment of theirs".(See UN comment above)

"Voluntary co-operation between empowered individuals in a democratic society, free from discrimination", as the basis of a "healthy society". (UN Agenda 21 change agents are now employed directly to carry out these policies and trained by local colleges to inflitrate local governments and apply the regulations directly)

Decisions to be made "at the closest practical level to those affected by them" to "emphasise democratic participation andaccountability".(see ICLEI site to see this in practise directly)

Non-violent solutions to conflict, seeking lasting settlement, taking into account "the interests of minorities and future generations". (future generations are the meme introduced to persuade innocent people to vote in present hardships to save future generations from global warming. Such PR propaganda techniques come straight from Edward Bernays/Goebbels and are used directly by Green Party activists to influence charities and academic organisations to adopt their views and spread them through the media).

End the use of "narrow economic indicators" to measure society's success. Instead "take account of factors affecting thequality of life for all people: personal freedom, social equity, health, happiness and human fulfilment". (ie drop known measurements used to assess the economy and allow total chaos, but deny it as they no longer measure actual accounts. Only socialists are concerned with equality. Few parties see individuals as unequal but only socialists want to keep their lives equal as well as their persons).

Use "a variety of methods, including lifestyle changes, to help effect progress", in addition to electoral politics. (lifestyle changes are not the concern of politicians, if they hurt no one then it's not for anyone to impose from outside, ergo they support totalitarian measures)

Now these policies are not unique to the Greens, but the focus on the environment is. Otherwise many overlap with basic Trotskyist and Marxist parties with absolutely no influence such as the Socialist Workers Party and Worker's Revolutionary Party. But their economic policies have somehow now become accepted as aspirations for both the UN and all parties up to centre-right now, and would not be considered at all extreme compared to many national policies worldwide.

I never make accusations without evidence (legal training), here are the similar list of Socialist Worker's Party, still considered far left and extreme:

They must have had some sort of training as their official site is fairly reasonable and actually more acceptable than the Labour Party's, but the clues remain to point to their real agenda however hard they've worked to clean up their image:

Major research and investment into replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy and into ending the problems of early obsolescence and unrecycled waste.

Oppose discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, disability, sexuality, age, and all other forms of prejudice. (this is already embodied in British law virtually exhaustively. As they aim to impose more one can only conclude that they will simply bring in forms of 'affirmative action' ie favouring the minorities against everyone else, and banning speech considered to breach the existing laws rather than restrict it to causing direct harm.

For the right to asylum. No to racist immigration laws. (presumably all immigration laws must be considered racist so no immigration laws at all)

Tax the super-rich! For a socialist government to take into public ownership the top 150 companies and banks that dominate the British economy, and run them under democratic working-class control and management. Compensation to be paid only on the basis of proven need. (that's a given of course)

No to the bosses' neo-liberal European Union! For a socialist Europe and a socialist world! (they give with one hand by opposing EU membership and take away with the other by replacing it with something almost the same and covering the entire world. Like the UN plans in fact.

They can't hide their real motives, they draw you in with pretty standard reasonable plans, and then as you yawn and press 'join the party' as if you support the left and deplore New Labour's drift to the centre you may have finally found a traditionally socialist party. But be patient and read right to the end, and all they want is a socialist (as do the Greens) world (as do the Greens) with a massive restriction on free speech and emphasis on the environment over all other economic activity. Not that different in the end really.

Finally compare with a few direct from the UN:

Agenda 21 is a 300-page document divided into 40 chapters that have been grouped into 4 sections:

The implementation of Agenda 21 was intended to involve action at international, national, regional and local levels. Some national and state governments have legislated or advised that local authorities take steps to implement the plan locally, as recommended in Chapter 28 of the document. These programs are often known as "Local Agenda 21" or "LA21".[3] For example, in the Philippines, the plan is "Philippines Agenda 21" (PA21). The group, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, formed in 1990; today its members come from over 1,000 cities, towns, and counties in 88 countries and is widely regarded as a paragon of Agenda 21 implementation.

How different exactly is this from two of the most extreme parties we have in Britain? It is almost as if the two have shared their meetings and adopted very similar plans and aims, but unlike the other two, the UN can and actually are carrying it out, despite the fact few sane people in any countries would vote the others in with enough support to influence, let alone run the government. Yet we have those policies anyway. Terrifying, isn't it.

Friday, 19 December 2014

One of the good number of scientists and politicians who openly
admitted global warming was a tool being used to unite mankind against
themselves in order to impose drastic measures to restrict power,
movement and wealth, was Stephen Schneider. He was the one with Margaret
Mead's Endangered Atmosphere conference (when they said we were heading
for an ice age) they needed to create scary scenarios to make the
people ask for a change, which they had already wanted to create but
needed the reason. Imagine my surprise when looking for that quote, to
see one of the three leading figures in original global warming history
(along with Mann and Hansen) provide this 2002 quote:

In a January 2002 Scientific American article Schneider wrote:

"I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse
the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out
either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident
probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about
environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment
body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused
to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures.
This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the
likelihood of various degrees of global warming"

Almost totally
contradicting his previous public media statements (he was one of the
most catastrophic prophets of doom on the planet, now replaced by his
second in line David Suzuki, who describes humans as maggots eating
their own waste), he slipped in (as is inevitable if you wait long
enough) a quote of the truth, and is worth a million lies from the same
person, whose entire recent career was admitted to be based on them.

"So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This
'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved
by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is
between being effective and being honest."

Too late Stevie, you did mention the doubts you said they musn't, as you had them, and as only they were real and not your pretence they didn't exist, despite your greatest efforts, they came out, and in writing.
He admitted, along
with Margaret Mead, Henry Kissinger and Mike Hulme, that the cause was
greater than the truth. That is the entire foundation of global warming,
adjustments, man made models, predictions and the rewriting of
thousands of years of climate records, proven by the originals used in
textbooks for decades. It is easy to fake science as only scientists can
prove it has been faked, who tend to protect their fellow peers by the
usual balance of threats and emoluments. But wait long enough and even
the lowest of the low scum slip out what they really mean, whether in
private via Climategate, or less frequently in an open interview.
Make no mistake, this was one of the three most influential scientists
on earth promoting the cause of saving the planet from global warming.
Long before the internet he worked on a public profile knowing his
earlier quotes would be almost impossible to turn up, and by the time
they did they carried so little weight against the decades of spin, it
didn't really matter. But the truth catches up with everyone sooner or
later, and contradicting himself just once is worth every single lie he
told in his lifetime (he admitted it, this is not my opinion), and he
admitted himself in a single sentence of confession HE DIDN'T REALLY
KNOW AS THE SCIENCE WASN'T SOLID ENOUGH TO RELY ON.

Wednesday, 10 December 2014

Due to the recent popularity of video blogs I have provided my first
video version of my entries here. Russell Brand not only represents an
entire section of anti-political opinion, but has now begun to lead one
entirely created by himself. These are the consequences sooner or later
if continued to its ultimate ends.

Monday, 8 December 2014

Once you've learnt the basics then look into your own lives for all the signs of Agenda 21, and they're nothing to do with the party in power as these are found all over the world. They are imposed by local and national governments and the EU who administer it all down to local level.

Road and travel restrictions: Including speed limit reductions, road blocking, narrowing and deliberate damaging with humps to ruin journeys for everyone, including public transport and emergency services.
London and Paris are already gradually banning older and diesel vehicles and are following an EU diktat planned to complete in 2050.

Slow implementation: These plans must be so gradual most people don't notice, so are planned over generations, like the related 'Ever closer union' clause within what is now the EU. According to Professor Geoffrey Sachs, “To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.”
You don't have to work it out, they tell you clearly.

Urban relocation: Beginning with the compulsory shifting of Chinese villagers into cities, in the high millions, as they do not respect individual rights so can impose measures directly, London and other places people will recognise where they live are increasing the number and size of tower blocks, under the Smart City initiative, moving people from suburbs and villages into multiple occupancy buildings. Houses are being demolished all over London to be replaced by mainly small unit blocks of 1-2 bedrooms, too small for a family, while most of Europe welcomes millions of new immigrants in from both inside (by law who move from the poorer to the better off countries who have little or no room or services for the hundreds of thousands arriving in each) and outside the EU (millions of Muslims alone have been invited or allowed into many countries in Northern Europe in an unprecedented move), which in turn both supply the demand to force councils to allow higher density urban housing, and create what Julian Huxley called 'A single world culture' in his inaugural speech as head of Unesco in 1946. Yes, these plans are and were never connected with the climate warming, they were part of a unified plan from day one.

Sachs explains: “looking for the endogenous roots of the modernization processes, seeking change within cultural continuity, translating the normative concept of ecodevelopment into a plurality of local, ecosystem-specific, culture-specific and site-specific solutions.”
ie moving people into high density cities and making transport so difficult they rarely travel very far or very often. Save the planet and ruin your life.

Market manipulation: The energy market is scapegoated for global warming, so customers are punished for using conventional fossil fuel, while the taxes on energy, fuel and travel are funnelled into subsidies for renewables, which build billions of pound's worth of useless wind turbines and solar panels, which produce random or weak energy, and pay the money to the landowners and companies to divert from fossil fuel generation to symbolic machinery which has conventional power backups running the whole time in the background which produce power whether drawn or not as some take weeks to warm up. Of course take the false front lines away and the backups still provide the power. This is nothing to do with global warming but redistribution of wealth and political power. For example, when they talk about renewables reaching an equal price with fossil fuel, it's because they will raise the price of fossil fuel to reach that of renewables, as they say, a race to the bottom and a scam to boot.
"The third dimension described by the professor is “Ecological Sustainability” which, among other things, limits “the consumption of fossil fuels and other easily depletable or environmentally harmful products, substituting them by renewable and/or plentiful and environmentally friendly resources, reducing the volume of pollutants by means of energy and resource conservation and recycling and, last but not least, promoting self-constraint in material consumption on part of the rich countries and of the privileged social strata all over the world.”

And in general:
“The solutions”, says Sachs, “can vary in terms of their boldness and take the form of global, multilateral or bilateral arrangements.” These arrangements should as far as Sachs is concerned ensure “at least partially the automacity of financial transfers by some form of fiscal mechanisms, be it a small income tax or an array of indirect taxes on goods and services whose production and consumption has significant environmental impacts.Over time, gradually, these taxes should increase."

As a result, Britain is switching many coal power stations to woodchips, half the power and six times the price of coal and imported from America.

Media hijacking: Have you noticed how so many children's programmes, films and books contain references to the environment and global warming? Just listen to a few hours of CBBC on the educational programmes to see at least one per viewing. It's no coincidence. The people need to believe the problem, and protect the system from the dissenters, so they hijack the media to spread their word. Barack Obama mentioned 'clean energy' in every single speech I've listened to, whatever the topic, as repetition is a vital tool of mind control, like a mantra, but in the form of a virus rather than a benefit. Professor Sachs, as a total believer in Agenda 21, is so sure it must happen he is not disposed to sugar coating or paraphrasing the intentions, but says it exactly how it is:

“A Communication Resource Unit”, the document continues, “is responsible for the implementation of media policy for one, or more than one field.” The document proceeds with outlining the functions of such a unit in regards to family planning messages: “The integration of messages is a matter which concerns the Communication Resource Unit, in that an integrated approach to family planning needs to be worked out. (…) These (messages) may be ‘family planning for maternal health’, ‘family planning for family prosperity’, ‘family planning for your figure’, ‘family planning for national prosperity’, family planning for child development.’ These messages will be pretested to find those which seem to appeal most to the eligible age groups.”

1984 in practice, black is white, bad is good, truth is lies. Believe it now? That is one application, extend it to all the aspects and you'll see it all around you in the papers and programmes.

From a preparatory 1974 document (these went back long before the later cause of global warming as the problem Agenda 21 was the solution to, as no one would accept such measures on their own),
“Discussing the role of media as motivators Sandman concludes that: “Four relatively effective kinds of environmental information are: basic ecological principles; prescriptions for environmental action; early warnings of anticipated problems; and assessments of blame for environmental degradation.”’, the report states. ie divide, rule and blame. Set mankind against itself and scapegoat.

Cashless society: Banks find cash rather demanding to handle now they can use computers to add and remove numbers. Also it is anonymous, while cards track every single penny you pay. London buses stopped taking cash and many places refuse cheques since the law was changed removing guarantee cards. Of course only businesses can run and afford data terminals, so when it's harder and harder to pay by cash how do you buy an item from a friend or a market stall who don't have the facilities for cards or won't trust a cheque without a guarantee?

Modernisation and improvements: Doublespeak is the backbone of Agenda 21, so when Transport for London say they're 'Modernising London's roads' then they are rolling them back to the days of coach and horses, and making them fit for bicycles rather than motor vehicles as they are obliged to under ICLEI rules. Look it up. But say they're 'improving' it and people believe them, and then wonder why half the main roads in London have been narrowed. Look at the results, ignore the words.
"Under the Local Government Act 2000 local authorities must prepare community strategies to ‘promote or improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas, and contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK’ In the context of the Local Government Act 2000 and the new duty it places on local authorities to prepare community strategies which 'improve or promote the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of their areas and contribute to the achievement of sustainable development'. Government guidance indicates that local authorities should make use of existing mechanisms like LA21 when developing their strategies, but has left it up to them to decide how, if at all, their community strategies relate to their LA21 activities. "

Reducing food access: Once you've tried to reduce energy usage (the result of the 1992 Kyoto Protocol), although everyone needs the rooms at roughly the same temperature so is no different to reducing air and water usage, food is next. There are two ways they are doing this so far, burning it for biofuel which raises prices, reduces supply, and causes starvation in the third world, and using measures to reduce meat consumption, which will gradually increase prices and reduce supply in the developed world, all under the imaginary threat of global warming. Starve or live under slightly different climate conditions? I know what you'd prefer.

Early indoctrination: Britain and now America (at the very least) have compulsory classes teaching children to nag their parents about their carbon footprint. If they followed them the children would live in cold houses, travel less and possibly even have a less healthy diet, so they both divide a family at an early age but if any parents follow the orders the children will actually suffer.

From a 1977 Unesco conference: “The objectives and strategies relating to the environment and to development had to be linked and coordinated. (…) It would be the task of education to make people aware of their responsibilities in this connection, but in order to do so it must first be reoriented and based on an ethos of the environment” And a little further on he states: “Environmental education should also promote attitudes which would encourage individuals to discipline themselves in order not to impair the quality of the environment and to play a positive role in improving it.”
All very innocent so far, then it widens its scope:
“Some countries have also taken an interest, as part of in-service training activities, in the environmental education of various social and occupational categories of the population, such as factory workers, farmers, civil servants, etc. Marked progress has been made in the preparation of audio-visual and printed teaching materials concerning the environment, and the mass media are being increasingly used for sensitizing and informing broad sectors of the public about the environment.”
Ten years later in a Moscow meeting the details were becoming more apparent:
The second level is “to harness school systems, non-formal learning and informal education to teach and learn about the global issues that shape and threaten the quality of our lives.” Arriving at the third and last level of global indoctrination, Mayor states: “The third level concerns the means at our disposal to project a global reach for education through both simple and highly advanced existing technologies. (…) the daily newspaper and radio have a crucial role to play in building bridges to the wider world. We must promote these media, defend and expand their freedom and appeal to their professionals at all levels to work with us for global education.”
They even created a term for it (as they do for everything, listed on another entry), 'Information repackaging', that is basically the exact opposite of what I am doing here by unwrapping it.

Banning dissent: This is not officially in the regulations, but David Suzuki wants to prosecute anyone who 'denies climate change' and many other activists and politicians agree with him. You can never have the facts getting in the way of the rules. Under the local action plans ostracising detractors is official policy so is only a matter of degree before it becomes backed by law somewhere.

Building regulations: Under mainly EU and national rules new buildings are now ordered to be 'sustainable', besides the essential insulation which anyone can put in anyway along with double glazing, they are restricting the use of cars by limiting the parking provision, meaning it is near on impossible to live or work in the new buildings if you own one. That removes the option from both ends by either banning their use in certain areas or removing the spaces to park them during the working day or overnight. They are also trying to use alternative means of heating, such as the impossibly designed air source heat pumps, which pretend to create heat from nowhere but basically use up a lot of electricity at many times the cost of a normal boiler and can't heat more than a couple of rooms at best. And they all have solar panels whether you want them or not, you still have to pay the many thousands it cost to include them. Unless they got a government grant in which case everyone else paid for them and get nothing back.

Volunteering: Where did David Cameron's 'Big Society' come from? You've guessed it. As they starve councils of money, who then have to close libraries, and the government (under EU 'liberalisation' rules) had to privatise the Post Office, who then close branches, what happens? Either people don't have a local library or post office, or people set them up in their own time. They work shifts and keep the smaller places going part time, saving the governments a fortune. The services are required, but no longer guaranteed to be paid for from your taxes. So by creating the problems that force people to roll up and use their own valuable time to look after their community they are effectively stealing their money if their time is valued by the minimum wage or more.

Communism: Hidden within the folds are plans to redistribute wealth from the west, through restrictions on industry and development blamed on global warming, and admitted openly in the 2010 interview with UN economist Ottmar Edenhofer. As put again by our professor, "This of course means, reducing the standards of living in “The North” (U.S., Europe) and upgrading those of the developing nations (“The South and The East”). This would have to be realized through what Sachs calls “Economic Sustainability”: “made possible by a more efficient allocation and management of resources and a steady flow of public and private investment.” So now we know.

So when you see councils of all colours and across the world applying seemingly weird policies and following each other into rebuilding and recreating where you live, this is the reason behind it. Have any of your roads been closed or diverted? Are there now far more immigrants from countries with no official status coming into your area despite having few qualifications or abilities the community needs? Are your food and energy bills going up far more than ever before, basically all the essentials you must spend on before you can on anything else? Not a coincidence. If you travel nationally or abroad, why are there so many more bus lanes (taken from existing roads, not added), low speed limits, tower blocks, road pricing, immigrants from other continents, with countries and localities losing their old characters like shopping centres, becoming more and more similar with more blocks of flats, immigrant ghettoes, road restrictions and similar propaganda whoever is in power. Their change agents, volunteers again trained by local UN groups such as UnLtd in Britain are taking over councils like sleepers, infiltrating them with UN people officially or unofficially to impose the regulations on them regardless of what people want. That has gone since the Rio Summit in 1992 which put this into law (once adopted), and now overrides every single choice you have. Welcome to the real world in the 21st century. It runs totally on your knowledge and consent. Gain the knowledge and take away the consent and it will all disappear.

Friday, 5 December 2014

The current western world's economic policies are working exactly like a tapeworm sucking your blood so gradually you rarely notice more than a relative tiredness and weakness, but cannot see how or where it is coming from.

They siphon your wealth silently and subtlely to their friends, supporters and families while people just feel life is harder and they have less but can't quite work out how or why.

It is incredibly simple. They use a handful of basic blunt instruments to manipulate the system, taking the exact amount of capital and shifting it from the people to the minority, the economics are impossible to misunderstand, and once exposed the people should storm parliament and take them down within a day, not wait for the next election so they can come back in any combination and do exactly the same.

So how do they do it? There are various ways, but these are the heaviest weapons, ones developed in recent years and adopted worldwide operating the same mass theft wherever you live in the western world. The triad of high house prices, low interest rates and quantitative easing extract a portion of everyone's wealth and returns it to bankers, governments and property companies.

Why? Who gains from higher house prices? Anyone with two or more homes. They can keep theirs and sell the others so turn them into assets. We can't if we only own one as if we sell it for a lot we have to live somewhere else which has gone up the same amount. It's like trying to chase your own tail. The distance will always be the same however large or small you or your tail is. How do they make house prices rise? Manipulate supply and demand. Low interest rates make monthly payments for mortgages lower, so the remainder is taken up by house price rises so you end up paying exactly the same amount per month. This is jointly calculated by mortgage brokers and estate agents worked out on what people can afford to shell out monthly, and is divided between principal and interest, but the amount never changes as it is the recognised maximum the individual can handle.

The quantitative easing maintains the ability to lower interest rates and not crash the economy as the fake money mops up the inflation enough to hide it long enough to continue indefinitely. Then as interest rates are so low and house prices are so high many savers shift from cash to property and increase demand and prices further in an endless spiral. Then to finish the job the government throw the doors open to foreign buyers to raise the demand even further as the same houses are now being chased by more people, and the economy tanks. There is no greater outgoing than a mortgage for anyone, it's a minimum of 25 years, and the higher the price the fewer people can afford one in the first place so will rent, which (unlike a mortgage payment) rises with inflation. So people are shifted from mortgages to renting and end up paying far more in the same period as while mortgage payments remain the same (adjusted for interest) as based on the buying price, rental rises every year on average.

The banks and governments borrow huge amounts at base rate (no one else does, they barely pay less for loans outside mortgages when rates are low), and if the rates rise they will lose the most, so they don't, possibly ever.

You've been had, big time, everyone, everywhere. And it was so easy!

Fact: There are 6-7 times more net savers than borrowers.

Fact: Average house prices were 3X average income up to the 70s. They
are now 10X. For exactly the same thing, which is an essential. And that
is how they did it.

OK, for a change I'm drifting into my own professional area rather than science, social science and psychology. Six years at college in total so any bastard who tries to tell me I'm not qualified to speak on this can go and whistle. Anyway, I don't mind if it's been done before but maybe my description may also open the way to a solution. Possibly. Like all hypnosis it wears off eventually, and the mass hysteria from global warming is all connected to this general mental programming created over decades by those who wish to stun the masses into oblivion while they tear our societies apart limb from limb.

It is based on totally misguided and immature beliefs of young inexperienced people who have never grown up and maintain these views into adulthood, combined with a total lack of knowledge of science and economics. Of course all children want everyone to be well off, or people who are poor not to be, and that is a genuine wish. But how you do it, ie making better off people worse off, will never work. Neither will the equally dangerous meme of people being successful not due to their talents but their background has forced generations of piss poor bright children to a bog standard education as there are no longer more than a handful of free selective schools for the intelligent children of poor parents, either as grammar schools or direct grant. Tony Blair took a step further by reducing the standard of all exams so everyone could get A grades in school exams if they did more than write the correct name and get a degree just for turning up for the exams and doing pretty much the same. I have spoken to markers and professors, it's the law, and when it's not the law (deliberately letting bad presentation through and ignoring major errors) the money wins over the talent when each passing student gets the university another grant regardless of their quality.

Base a policy on a false belief and you have rules making people do the wrong things. There's no exception. Now I will list every single element, normally coming as a complete package, of the liberal (for self-labelled movements read the opposite for the term they choose for themselves, so 'fascist' is pretty much the real result, social fascism in fact) BBC, left wing councils and social workers, who along with the 1970s middle class intelligentsia I grew up with in North London created this pandemonium of antisocial views. If I miss one or two I'm sure it won't spoil the entire picture, but they are all variations on the same theme, with some subclasses I'll add with each main principle. Of course some came from genuine sources, but were then exploited and hijacked by those who didn't want equal rights for the downtrodden, but superior ones. Fuck that.

Equality: The original bastardised rule. Yes, everyone is of equal value as an individual. Like all the runners at the start of a race. Then the gun goes off and they stream out into status. The scientific basis for those results are clearly known, and a combination of inherent ability and hard work. But without the ability no one will make a Van Gogh, Usain Bolt, Stephen Hawking or Einstein. It can't happen. But the good news is that in real life every track points in a unique direction, your own direction. That success is based on your abilities, a unique set of qualities you are born with and develop throughout your life, so as we are all unique we are not competing with other people unless you choose an area where you earn money from winning in sports. Your success is mutually independent of everyone else's, as you can't paint too many good pictures or write too many good books as the demand is endless. So never treat anyone worse than others, or better. Once women and minorities have laws to stop them being discriminated against they've gained equality, and then stop. Otherwise the feminists and other equal opportunity wallahs never stop, the unions didn't just get Labour to provide them with worker's rights, they then tried to run the companies, and caused the deepest loss of work the country had ever seen in the 70s onwards, now farming out nearly all the industry and coal mining as they simply wouldn't work without dictating the rules or going on strike. This applies to every single group who were treated like crap as there was no law to stop them, and now cannot be. This positive discrimination brought in by the left is of course discrimination, like sparkling manure, it's still manure however much glitter you spread over it. If women and ethnic minorities want to be treated equally then they have to compete on equal terms, not be handed work ahead of everyone else. That's immoral and cheating them more than anyone else as in their hearts they know they may not be good enough.

That also covers feminism, sexism, equal opportunities, diversity and reverse racism as subgroups.

There are a set of beliefs associated with liberalism which are held as tenets as strong as any in a religious text. As Will Self, the mouthpiece of my own locality and generation of wrong thinking, if you think gay marriage can't be the same as ordinary marriage you're homophobic, and like even a-holes like David Cameron (who calls himself a conservative), if you are against immigration you're racist, or at very best a 'swivel eyed loon'. In fact the immigration doors were held as widely open by them as their Labour predecessors who opened them as they have kept the same overall 250,000 a year or so ever since regardless of the empty words they use to say they're stopping it. And the same Cameron won't bring back grammar schools (as a 'Conservative') as they are 'elitist'. These principles which created a tiny country able to dominate the world politically, industrially and educationally are being dismantled for a one size fits all Maoist style cultural revolution, which not just destroyed culture but like the earlier holocaust killed many of the individuals responsible for it, so threatening did he find any genuine intelligent opposition.

Racism: This is a catch all barrier thrown up by those on the left to stop any criticism of a single group or individual from not just another race, but now (quite erroneously) from another country. Never allow criticism of bad behaviour (gypsy criminal gangs, black on black killings, Asian sex exploitation gangs etc), as can be seen in Rotherham by giving the ethnic minority criminals a free pass hundreds of more English (as they thought they were inferior so didn't matter) girls were assaulted as the left wing council didn't want to cause any local racial tension by exposing their wrongdoing. Muslims get away with female genital mutilation, killing women in their families and trying to teach and impose Sharia law on non-Muslims as they are currently exempt from behaving like normal civilised people. Again the equality vanishes as any group basically 'not us' are given free passes to effectively do what the fuck they like, and you are (like the victim of a mugging who gets prosecuted for fighting back) punished for pointing it out. Dangerous indeed. The black drivers who claim they were only stopped because of their colour either get stopped at night when the police can't see it till after they've stopped and left the car, or have a car full of drugs or stolen goods are exploiting this trick for as much as possible, except the police are the one group on earth currently immune from such false appeals, so the media (Doreen Lawrence in particular) label them 'institutionally racist' for treating black criminals like criminals just like white ones.

Atheism: Not your old fashioned atheism, like I used to have, but a militant form, attacking every aspect of not just religion (which I happen to believe is totally pointless myself) but belief in God. So much so in comparison I had to redefine myself as an agnostic as I had an open mind as I believe we know a small fraction of reality and must be open to learn more. They are still religious though, but worship something different, to the same level as the greatest fundamentalists of every single extreme religion, nay, cult, throughout history,

Global warming: I've discovered most people carry the full package. They use 'isms' as weapons to shut down opposition in all areas, fight all aspects of religion (except oddly Islam, not sure why as yet), and treat slightly different possible weather in a hundred years when none of us will ever live to know either way as the most dangerous problem facing mankind. They are psychotic. Truly. The definition of psychotic is believing an alternative to reality. Mass psychosis, like Jim Jones and Charles Manson's followers, as well as Stockholm Syndrome,is so easily manipulated it killed most of Europe's Jews for absolutely no reason or point. There's no doubt people can be convinced of absolutely anything, as Goebbels spent his time creating methods to do just that as he learnt the incredibly simple ways to do it. Basically it's authority plus extending a genuine issue beyond the reality till it dominates the entire consciousness. It doesn't matter if it's witches, Jews, or any other innocent scapegoat, but the global warming brigade have upped the ante as far as you can, as they have gone to war against mankind itself.

You can't ever beat such an atrocity. The creeps in the UN, Rockefeller Foundation and all its branches, who all know perfectly well there's no such thing, confessed many times they invented global warming to unite mankind against itself in order to rule them from a single government and keep them down at every possible angle. I've written that piece already, look for the roots of Agenda 21 for the full summary. The fear of death, both their own and their unborn children's is enough to fool most immature idiots, and as the world's largest IQ test proved why half the people are in double digits.

Multiculturalism: This one mystified me particularly, as it makes no sense at all. Why on earth would anyone really want to mix as many possible foreign cultures and languages in their own for no other reason than variety? I needed to do a heck of a lot of research to get to the bottom of this, and turns out to be another means of homogenising society, by mixing groups so much there was no longer a set of individual local cultures and races, but eventually just one general assortment of them all. Again, Julian Huxley's idealised view of one world culture was a psychopathic method of rearranging the world the way they wanted it, based on no less than his previous role in the Eugenics Society. Yes, it's the master race again. Who are the master race? Those left over when the organisers have completed their plan over many gradual generations, too slowly for people to notice, and each generation the ruling elite have more and more power and property taken from the others until they are totally in charge. Don't take my word for it, read David Suzuki and the Club of Rome's publications. They actually believe this is true and are proud to say it.

Homophobia: Bear in mind when attacking countries like Uganda and Russia where there are rules of varying levels against homosexuality it was also illegal in Britain till the 60s, so however much we have turned the equality boat around here such attitudes are hardly old-fashioned or unusual, they were mainstream within my own lifetime. I've already stated and will state again all discrimination is bad, and needs laws against it, and that's it. But then to want more than everyone else had you are pushing the envelope and taking massive liberties. It's human nature to do so but don't use it as a weapon to get more than your fair share. If people don't want to have two men share a bed in their house even though they are renting out rooms as a hotel it's not nice but should it be illegal? Or even making jokes about homosexuals many would tell themselves? You don't let anyone be treated with kid gloves just because they're different, and it's pretty much like making laws exempting certain groups from following them because they're different. That's not equal, that's cheating, and with people like Will Self using homophobia as a weapon to protect homosexuals from any criticism or questioning or jokes at all is giving them a privileged status no different from any other which no one deserves.

Anti-Israel: Will Self again, who in 2006 attempted to divest himself of his Jewishness as Israel was 'an apartheid state'. No left winger is complete without their Palestinian flag and hate of those more successful than others. And democratic. Enough said.

Moral relativity: The old chestnut you can get away with murdering family members, slicing their genitals to shreds and keeping women covered in sheets is OK as it's their culture basically condones and encourages criminality, the golden rule, treat others as you would treat yourself is universal and if they don't want others to live by it I suggest they all move to Saudi Arabia or North Korea where everyone else in power agrees with them. Except oddly those people living under such regimes are streaming to Europe and America where they are free to do more of what they want than under their own.

------------------------------------------------------------

Taken together, normally as a complete package, as it's rare for anyone to hold a few of these memes without the rest, these would destroy any society within a generation. The global warming laws would create power cuts and kill more and more people who couldn't afford the higher costs, as the Kyoto Protocol planned, to reduce the usage of energy, like food or water if they could (they can). The multiculturalism and moral relativity will divide communities, create civil wars as they are in many riot zones when anything kicks off, and increase the incidence of serious crime many fold. There's more and more evidence every month as divisions occur between the native people and immigrants with totally different values and morals. It's inevitable, as despite communication being free between nearly every place on earth now, the advanced levels do not pass down to the lower ones, they keep their relatively primitive ways of life, like the West Africans washing the dead bodies who died of Ebola and catching it themselves, knowing it happens but continuing, and nationalities in many places aborting female babies as they may attract a dowry or they just see them as a burden. Do we really want this everywhere after the western world threw off these diabolisms hundreds or thousands of years earlier? No, they do not catch our ways on contact, like if an alien race landed tomorrow and showed us how to cure diseases and travel across galaxies, they ignore or even condemn them, and for the old generation at least carry on exactly as they did before wherever they are.

Therefore it is poisoning people's minds to promote such views, as it celebrates the worst and enforces the most restrictive and totalitarian values there are, little different from Maoism. It is a mental program, where susceptible minds, the same ones who agreed with Hitler and voted in the party who wiped out millions of innocent people simply for being different to them, to now fight against anyone and everyone they are told to, whether in the name of fighting climate change, protecting minorities or promoting equality, while all the time doing exactly the opposite, much like pouring corrosive acid on the very things they are trying to create.

I am pointing it out, I do not offer any solution beyond awareness, and like many mental conditions such as addiction and self harm, once someone realises what is happening they do something about it. Awareness is the first level of cure, and by becoming aware both of the afflicted, and them becoming aware of it themselves, the spell will probably be lifted. And it can't come too soon.

Tuesday, 25 November 2014

This is a first. I'm not a scientist but writing an article on it. It's also a test to see if a total amateur (I passed at O level and not A level after taking a year, and that was pretty much it formally) can use other people's science plus logic to present something as genuine and accurate as if written by a scientist themselves. You know, like journalists do.

The standard meme offered by global warming believers is to compare Venus with Mercury, which is much hotter but further from the sun. Logic (not science as it is universal) says something besides the sun has to make it hotter. The scientists here (well, since global warming became an issue, I didn't check before and wouldn't be easy to find out as they may have covered their tracks) simply parrot it's the greenhouse effect. All very well, except that they learnt about atmospheric pressure in their first year and would unanimously be totally aware of its effects on temperature using simple (for them) equations explaining how the identical atmospheric composition can have different effects when more and more concentrated, like Venus basically.

As we don't have a control system offering two earths, one with 260ppm CO2 and another which is rising, it's not physically possible to prove or even know with much certainty how altering such a tiny amount of a massive atmosphere will make any difference. They have a single equation which adds around 1C per doubling until it can no longer catch any further heat where there will be no more effect. No one knows this point as it can't be modelled and can only wait and see for centuries or more, which is basically a proven unknown.

Therefore they hold up Venus, say it's got far more CO2 and methane, and that's why. Really? Using the same type of equation which assigns 1C per doubling of CO2, there's a similar relationship for doubling atmospheric pressure. Now luckily the very equation is O level/GCSE standard so means I'm actually still qualified to mention it directly. Atmospheric pressure effects
There is a mass of gas, and the more you compress it the hotter it gets. Of course there are other causes, but who has ever seen a reference to air pressure when measuring causes of temperature elsewhere? I haven't. It is a simple linear relationship so easy to graph, and at any point (in an open as well as closed system where they measure it in a lab, unlike the atmosphere) can measure the temperature with the same composition and amount with the rise in pressure (Charles' Law). I won't be applying this directly but the link shows the formula, and I will now present the atmosphere composition and temperature of Mercury, Venus, The Moon, earth and Mars and pressures and see how they compare:

Now looking at this table the interesting elements are the temperature can clearly be seen as related the most to the massive variations in atmospheric pressure. Mars and Venus are both nearly all CO2, but as Mars lost nearly all its atmosphere and only has the remnants, while as a control Venus has almost the same amount but a massive amount, (and remember at a totally unknown point adding CO2 can't add to the temperature at all) and by convention water vapour is not included in earth's official atmosphere but adds 95% of the official greenhouse effect (the difference between having it and not). Hold on, I hear you say, why have the world's top authority, NASA, included a trace of water vapour on Venus and not earth? You have their site, so you'll have to ask them, but technically it doesn't affect the figures here as I knew it was here as well so factored it in anyway. And our best control for the earth is the Moon, as its distance is similar from the sun, and as we learn the major effect of an atmosphere at all is to even out the temperature between day and night as it allows it to cool more slowly. But the daytime equator temperature on the moon exceeds the boiling point of water, so clearly an atmosphere has to slow daytime temperatures from rising as it absorbs the heat rather than letting it through to the surface. The next points are albedo (how much the body reflects heat away by
how white the atmosphere is), and radiative reception in total watts per
square metre. See the Lunar climate
here for more details to explain, and it appears to eliminate various causes and highlight others which again none of the mainstream system do but clearly genuine and accurate.

The next step for scientists or anyone able to is to apply Charles' law and various other formulas to the planets and see how they pan out in relation to air pressure v temperature (once distance from the sun is allowed for, which is a balancing equation they will surely know how to do as well). Then factor in the official greenhouse effect equations to subtract the ambient temperature (that assumed, as it is not certain) with no atmosphere at all, from the actual total per planet to calculate its greenhouse effect. I am then going to copy those results over here once some kind reader has done the work for me (as I really am not a scientist), and ideally double check it, and then we should get a fairly definitive measurement of atmosphere and pressure related to temperature once the distance from the sun has been evened out. But the clues as to the result look fairly massive before it's done here, while the scientists out there should probably know this already, but why isn't it in any of the material?

Therefore if you clothe each planet with the other's atmosphere the pressure will be totally different, as will the temperature.

Friday, 21 November 2014

Ideology is not just crazy at times, but physically dangerous. If you hold on to Utopian and immature views, get the majority to vote for them (or implement them anyway, like gay marriage and mass immigration) you will be applying your twisted and confused ideas to real people who will suffer as a result. One such imaginary opinion has screwed the highest standard of education in the world, where people spend thousands each per year from all around the world to gain the benefit of, and can be proved from start to finish. One either misguided or deliberately destructive view (depending whether they are working from ideology or sabotage, as Blair did when he opened the doors to mass immigration to destroy the middle class society) is that given the same opportunities every person can do equally well, academically or otherwise.

Of course the fact you get people like Mozart and Leonardo da Vinci, along with many other children producing art, music and maths beyond degree and professional level, sometimes with little or no training, along with others who regardless of their background will need care for the rest of their lives, those are the visible thin ends of the bell shaped curve I doubt even the furthest down the road of Haringey and Islington politics could dispute were pretty much representative of natural ability, yet they dismiss everyone else in the middle as if they could all become the same as Mozart given enough encouragement.

That or they simply didn't want to admit the 5 million or so unemployed, so when the Tories went up the road of paying them to go off sick, which gave them more money and saved many people having to suffer who nearly all were sick (I've been through the tests, they are almost impossible to beat the system) Labour took one of the most insidious and reckless ideas the left have ever thought of, slightly less possibly than the statement 'We are Hizbollah', that all people are the same. Not equal, as our lives are all equal, but all the same as blobs of clay ready to be moulded in any way life makes us. Forget the genetic fingerprinting for virtually every quality known to man, separated twin studies and all the other solid science showing the exact opposite (Mensa studies show you can repress talent but never add to it), they blindly stick to their childish nonsense we can all be geniuses, except possibly: people with Down's syndrome, people with genetic deficiencies, people with brain damage etc, so using inclusive logic (deduction) if the people at the known extremes of congenital intelligence are accepted as having limited capabilities, surely that means everyone is on that scale somewhere? If not then prove it.

Regardless of the impossible challenge above, Tony Blair worked out a dual way to make him look good and reduce unemployment at a stroke. Let more people do degrees, from 5% to 50% eventually, despite the 1962 Education Act setting national minimum standards to pass. I know personally from a number of lecturers they are bribed to pass students indirectly through funding per pass. Possibility of corruption? Surely. They allow science students not to add up properly and English students to use bad grammar and spelling. One or two resigned, the rest happily play along. I can't quote names as people may get into trouble, but use your own resources. The point being that a degree had a 5% uptake because only 5% of people could pass it. My polytechnic, the overspill for people who couldn't get decent A level grades but were determined to get on, had a far greater acceptance rate, and all that happened was because the degrees were of the identical standard to universities (higher at times as they were externally moderated as well by the CNAA) more people failed. There was no incentive to get people through, quite the opposite as they knew if they made things too easy and the numbers and grades improved they'd get an audit, so they erred on the side of caution. Our head of Crime (OK, Criminal Law) explained it all to us when a visit was imminent, and besides that law is also governed by the Law Society as it has to qualify you for their finals as a graduate.

So besides the element of sympathy many lecturers had for us, as a result offering us extra free tuition, as Mensa pointed out, you can't get more out of the sponge than it has absorbed, only make the best of careless, lazy or confused minds which are otherwise sound but need their sheep herding tidily. I spent the first six years after graduation teaching and know the score, each person reaches their limits, while PhDs never do as they often keep producing using that as a start rather than a finish. That's why they allow resits, get it wrong, find out why and do it differently. If you can't learn from your mistakes you've overstretched yourself and will have to pack up and resort to M&S or London Transport. The lecturers all know this as they do far more in the area than I did, and only a few extra potty sociologists around who seriously imagine everyone could really manage it given the chance, but the evidence speaks for itself and is no secret among the insiders.

When asking the inane question 'what harm can it do letting more people succeed?' remember they would have nearly all failed in the past, and in technical areas these people will give the impression they are the same now as graduates then and end up in responsible jobs despite not knowing all the rules well enough. How could they? No differently from allowing probably competent medical and technical staff who can't speak or understand English properly, except if they made it the law (they can't, it's racist) most of them could remedy that. But you can't guarantee ever getting someone up to the standard of a professional if they couldn't have done otherwise. And when only those capable got through (including everyone from poor backgrounds back when we had free selective education in grammar schools) not only were they free but they paid everyone on top for maintenance. Then Blair (Labour) introduced the token precedent of tuition fees, which swiftly rose nine times, while Scotland (using the same money) still charge nothing. So not only did they lower the standard by ten times (5-50%) and reduce unemployment by taking that many out of the system, he not only saved all those benefits but (assuming they pay enough back) potentially made a profit.

So when the poor graduates of today end up with their inflated O and A level results so they think they've got the grades required for their degree in fruit management in Gosport University (which, like it's cousins popular culture and sausage production didn't appear to exist until the new system), then what happens is they get in, get a 2:2 or worse (unless there's a bonus for grades as well), and wonder why they end up only getting the identical jobs they'd have got without it. Of course the number of graduate jobs required never changes, so by turning out ten times more graduates only a tenth of them, hopefully but not certainly the best, will get those jobs, and the rest by pure arithmetic will end up doing exactly what they would have before but with letters after their name, and imagine as I'm sure they all do the As they got at school are just the same as the ones people got in the 70s as are their degrees. Now how a government managed to persuade the millions of extra school leavers to apply for degrees is a gap in the picture I can't fill myself, as just because you presumably cram in many more people to the existing lectures and convert every college to a university, how do you get the previously non-academic students to take them up? I can only guess it's a simple process of encouragement with inflated grades and directing them into paths they'd never dreamed of taking had they got the handful of Cs and Ds they actually deserved and returned to the real world at 18 and worked in retail.

So we have a system based entirely on a failed proposition that everyone is equal academically given equal chances, the marks from GCSEs upwards were shifted accordingly (try proving that as unless someone refuses to do it they'll be incriminating themselves for fraud if they go to the authorities) so suddenly within a few years all the grades were two points up compared to before, so much so they needed to invent the new A star as so many people were getting the existing top marks it was impossible to separate them. Of course A grades were as rare as hen's teeth till then, besides the annual articles reporting them for the old GCEs The Times published national degree results every year till the new numbers would have required publishing a phone directory for a week each year. The top marks were quite rightly the top few percent, I wasn't a very good student admittedly, but from a total of 11 GCE passes and 13 degree topic passes I got a single example, which to me is almost as valuable as the higher qualifications as it took me 24 exams to get one. Back then three As at A level got you to Oxbridge at least for an interview, now the average decent old university requires As and Bs just to get through the door.

So unless there's some kind of scientific breakthrough which has discovered ways to prepare almost anyone for a degree (besides making vocational topics and hobbies degree level which never needed them before) which would also mean every single study of education and intelligence since the 1930s or so was wrong, it's a stitch up. Look at the facts:

Degrees were a set standard, 5% of people on average took and completed them, while borderline students were let in and mainly dropped out. Suddenly 50% of people were considered capable of passing them.

Lecturers admit in private they can't fail anyone without either risking the sack or a very good reason, including science where lives may depend on their competence.

Removing a huge number of school leavers from the workforce for three years reduces the unemployment figures and the costs of benefits.

The increased cost of providing degrees shifted from the state to the student as a direct result.

There are never going to be more jobs required for graduates as you always need more workers than managers.

In the end the same number of people will have the graduate jobs while the rest will have letters after their names doing what they would have done without them as that is what they can do regardless.

Danger will be possible to the general public as many scientists and other professionals will be passed despite not getting their sums right and never needing to apply what they learned at work as the employers assume they did get them right as they 'passed' their degrees, while I for one know better from the head of said department, actually one of the world's best in its field, not some backwoods ex art school.

Why would ten times as many school leavers decide to go to university when they didn't before?

Add all this up and you can only see what I see, a total scam and one which gets worse to this day as the government aim to get the 25% odd or so current degree students up to the target figure, while many universities are cramming the lectures so full they don't have the space or staff to cope with the numbers, and more people from even lower levels of ability will be sucked into the already fake system with even worse performance and as the target remains at 50% will no doubt be passed to raise the numbers and further reduce unemployment and unemployment benefits paid out.

Saturday, 15 November 2014

Long discussions online have demonstrated to me how it is possible for otherwise intelligent and educated people to be led by liars. The answer was simple. There are stages of cognitive development, and they have not reached the one required to think for themselves clearly, and the killer is they don't even believe such a state of mind exists where the person is immune to most forms of control and programming. When they see an advert claiming CO2 will kill us all, or eating McDonalds will make you more popular or whatever other crap they produce to persuade us to do as they want, they are moulded as Bernays and Goebbels designed it and therefore cannot think for themselves when someone else takes over their mind. This programming is designed to be totally subliminal, the trick being they either think they have worked these things out for themselves, or trust the authority figure totally who tells them. That's why toothpaste ads have men in white coats, and the problem here is when two different ads with men in white coats disagree with each other. Then they use the weight issue. No, not obesity, but numbers.

Consensus had to be invented to support poor or dishonest science when too many white coats disagreed so the sheep had to have a reason to pick the good guys over the bad (as in the message they wanted) so pointed out how many agreed so the others must be wrong. This isn't even a valid argument as if 97% of doctors say you have a fever yet you feel normal and the thermometer says you don't then it's irrelevant what other people say, in some cases you can take the material and simply work it out for yourself, and if not the knowledge you do have will resonate with what the three honest doctors tell you rather than the liars working together in what the law calls 'a conspiracy'. Believing conspiracies aren't possible is the second layer of defence used in crookery, so they mock every individual who claims it is happening, not because of the actual evidence, but because scientists or anyone else involved aren't capable of being in a conspiracy. Except bankers maybe. Or top police. But never, ever scientists.

This explains totally how apparently clever people constantly work to dismiss errors and support the global warming as their minds are simply not capable of working anything out themselves where they accept the view totally from authority. Nothing they perceive will have an effect, as even colder winters and falling temperatures will be explained with faux science, and as many are scientifically qualified and familiar with the phenomena and equations, don't take the time to apply them themselves to check (they often can't, it's one thing to learn equations, a whole other to use them in complex systems), and just use them to prove they can do exactly the opposite for what they actually do.

So basically those generally immune to mind control cannot help those who are not, as they are immature mentally and although we all have the potential to wake up and shake off the power of others, it is almost impossible for anyone outside to do it for them, and even harder for them to work it out themselves. The only current guarantee is when one of their heroes lets them down and is caught or admits cheating. A few diehards at a level even lower will accept cheating spouses and worse over and over again, but not in numbers to count. Nearly everyone else will suddenly see the light and want to deal with the scientific community or whatever who made them idiots and cost them a fortune for all that time. The same goes for pyramid and Ponzi schemes, and any other example where a few lone voices present almost perfect evidence a group are collectively cheating and the authorities and others alike ignore and mock them, until years later (Libor took over ten years, Bernie Madoff was investigated a few times before they were finally busted almost by chance) they are busted.

Then most ex-sheep will claim 'Ah, we had our suspicions for ages, we just weren't sure' etc, which they totally didn't or they wouldn't have kept their money in the bogus investments, or called people murderers for 'denying climate change', but in fact many are not even consciously lying, as the result was so obvious after the event they convinced themselves they must have seen it as it is so clear to them now.

Just as it is to us before they do.

But until then they see those whose minds operate at a logarithmic level above them, like a Richter scale, as an impossible power, so dismiss it exists at all. To those in three dimensions four dimensions cannot exist, or those in two for three. Therefore as their minds are currently restricted by smallness, they assume all minds are. So they assume everyone else are liars, as they have no concept of having a free and independent mind. You can't fix this as it's part of human development, but at least you can be aware of it. Sometimes you can describe a problem very well but not provide a solution. I have read intense personal contact can win souls over one at a time, but is far too time and labour intensive to have more than nominal effects. It's a bit like counselling, you can't help an addict or troublemaker until they realise they need it. Till then they will swear their wives made them hit them, or they can spend a day drinking or stop smoking if they wanted to, and everyone has to sit back and watch them destroy themselves and those around them. This is the same position with all believers in what others tell them or those who refuse to accept what others think when they disagree with them, and they are lost to the world until they may reach the point where they lose more from their beliefs than others do. But we can't do a thing to make it happen. That's life apparently unless someone can find another way.

Thursday, 13 November 2014

It's actually quite hard to find figures for domestic solar panels online, presumably as they want you to call and have a rep over to try and persuade you to hand money over rather than learn the truth on your own and shut the door tightly.

Gradually information dribbles out, through other people's enquiries and TV, and a rare article in the papers, and eventually I think it's possible to present a definitive formula for how long a customer will take to profit from a solar array, which doesn't really matter on the size as the saving is proportionate.

I will assume an average £10,000 cost for simplicity, which is fairly typical for a domestic array. There are a few steps involved in a basic up front deal, where the customer carries the entire cost and then gets paid by the government (currently ten times the market price) for the power they create and don't use. Then I will remove these subsidies, as without them the profit appears not to exist, so in fact what they are saving per year is mainly made up from everyone else's taxes on their energy bills which are then redistributed to renewable subsidies.

Step one: You spend £10,000 on a solar array (including the inverter). Optional batteries (almost as much on top) will allow usage for a short time after it gets dark but not part of the equation.

Using simple cost accounting you have made an investment, no different from any other. It is not a cash investment as you can get those back, but a depreciating asset like a car or a computer. Therefore it is a one way street, once bought then you have no alternative to win the deal by living in the same house until the money balances out and then the profit comes.

Step two: Accounting principle two, money today is worth more than money tomorrow. That is why all investment accounts pay interest and the further ahead the more they pay. This means a solar array which breaks even in a decade or more will have lost you the annual interest for at least ten years so the money you make does not really count after you break even as it's eaten at least another year after you nominally catch up to cover the lost interest from having to spend all that money in one go instead of gradually over the period.

Step three: You then need to compare your total period owning solar panels when they expire (15-20 years or so) with your identical power use on your previous system. You must calculate the exact amount spent not up front but monthly or quarterly for that period had you not had the solar panels, and then subtract what you actually ended up with (bills plus payments) for your bottom line. Then it has to be adjusted for inflation, as your solar array was paid for up front, and then you waited a year for a fraction back until if you were lucky you broke even. Otherwise you get your power in credit and pay after you've used it. That is not affected by interest or inflation as you only pay the equivalent £10,000 on power in instalments without the interest, explaining why you have to take it off for solar as you have lost at least a decade's interest or change in value by paying now and not as you use it.

Step four: To be genuinely honest you can't compare the market run power companies with subsidies from the government which pay ten times more per KwH than you would otherwise. It's not even your money, the government have skimmed it off everyone else to encourage people to buy solar, even though they've just spent an entire decade's typical bills in one go. Once you've subtracted the subsidies you will see that without them no solar domestic customer could ever make a profit, as the little power they generate (10-15% of domestic requirements maximum) means you only pay 10-15% less for the actual power assuming you're in when it's happening (ie during the day when most people are working), as it can't at night. Unless you fill a room with batteries, and that costs pretty much what you save so cancels out anyway.

Therefore standing alone, spending £10,000 or so on non-storage real time solar, you can't save more than 10-15% off your bill through what little they may generate when it's light enough, you'll never be able to use them at night when the lights go on or in the winter for long when you need the heating the most. It's physically not possible. So although I've demonstrated that waiting a decade or more for solar to even pay back before adjusting what the money spent now with the savings over spreading it out is economic lunacy, even that is almost totally made up of the massive profits you make on the few watts they produce each day when there's no one home. But not from actually creating power you use instead of from the grid. Ever.

Of course you can add even more panels if you want more power, but look at how much it will cost you then. There's no way round this one. Even as things stand you have spent a decade's energy bills up front with absolutely no guarantee you'll ever see it again, and even if you do it'll be well down from inflation. And take away the subsidies and a profit is impossible, how could you get it from saving power alone when if you're lucky you'll save 10% a year after spending ten year's worth up front? And many locations can't manage that, so won't get much back from subsidies either as there won't be enough excess to register.

You can't rearrange these figures besides the two future potential variations, a maximum doubling of solar efficiency and an economy of scale reduction in panel prices. But the same rules always apply, you pay in advance for power you may not get, and only make a profit while governments continue taking your fellow citizen's money to do so. And that's not real business is it?

3) Assuming returns are maximum (rather than average) you could ideally get the amount back over 7 years but that does not represent a typical installation.

4) Remove the subsidies, reducing your payments by 90% (for the great majority paid ten times per watt as the going rate).

5) Calculate exactly what you would have spent on power for the same period without solar and subtract the difference. Did you make a profit or a loss? This will vary per house as no two locations have the same amount of sunlight, but you'll then know for sure, and you almost certainly won't like the answer.